Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaQuote
False Dilemma is a type of logical fallacy, which is a belief or claim based on mistaken reasoning. False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true
Stop trying to smartass me Lauda. Every reply you've ever given me so far was some sort of attempt at dramatizing the situation or taunting me. I speak and express genuine concerns I have, through my own experiences, and if I ever mention you, I only refer to you based on your actions (a.k.a if anyone did what you did, I'd express my disagreement against that specific thing, exactly the same way.) Since I really couldn't care who you are behind that keyboard in this virtual world, I was tempted to ignore you, but I realised I should let you know why.
Is this supposed to be an argument?If you keep writing these jokes of arguments, and kind of attacks that only mean to get some sort of response out of me, from now on I'm going to ignore you. I never meant to dislike you, I always have disagreements with some people, and it's normal. But for you, outside of your judgements on "scammers", you're actually a very childish person. And I know myself, I just couldn't give two fucks about drama. So, peace.
Yes, now go for the personality; that will show them just how legitimate your "concerns" really are. I guess when you're in a pay-per-post campaign anything goes as long as it has any substance (who needs consistency :shrug:). 
What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.
No one forcing here, you know very well there is exclusion (~) option. We can simply exclude them, no need to ask anyone. But I think it's better to solve by discussion here. I don't like just kick out someone suddenly. If you trust any person you can leave positive feedback's. But you should add on your custom list those user's feedback's you trust. This is the main fact. Why you need make big your exclusion list since you can solve it by discuss here ? If DT1 exclude someone then he will removed automatically, is it not centralized? Then what is the problem discuss here ? This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member. If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ? His positive feedback's will reflect green and there is chance happen something wrong. Nevermind if someone not leaving feedback's but he should an active member, so he will know the current situation. 
-snip-
Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon.Code:
mexxer-2
Code:
shorena